For more Inspection columns, please click HERE.

"...a few bad apples..."

-Ex-Pres. George W. Bush, forgetting to mention these were mostly the rotten apples at the top of the barrel

"What they essentially have said is, 'If we have policy disagreements with our predecessors, what we are going to do is turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin America country... and systematically prosecute the previous administration on policy differences.'"

-Karl Rove, claiming that drowning people, slamming their heads up against the wall and locking their children into bug infested boxes are merely "policy differences."

(Obama's stand on prosecuting torture...) "...has turned into a 'murky maybe.'"

-Bill Press, getting it right

 

    Anyone who would ever accuse me of being a Bush supporter either has never read a damn thing I've written, or their reading comprehension is less than zero.

    And as many regular and former regular readers know, I don't always quite qualify as an "Obama supporter." Brief history: I started with Kucinich, who the media made damn sure would never get any traction. Then I marginally picked Hillary over Obama... only because I felt, between the two, only a Clinton would hit back enough to win. And maybe, just maybe, the Clintons knew enough about what happened last time that they wouldn't put up with another Right Wing Hell storm. It certainly wasn't because I'm some googly eyed Hillary-ite, any more than I'm what the Right Wing likes to refer to as "Messiah worshiping" Obama-nite.

    I'm very glad I was wrong regarding Barack's ability to win.

   I'm one of those voters that always winds up voting for the least undesirable option, not that I thought Obama himself was that "undesirable." Just not my first pick by any means... any more than Hillary was.

    Why?

    Because I had a sneaking suspicion that he was more platitudes than substance. I guess you might say that I get suspicious when any candidate's main source of rhetoric is mouthing catch phrases over and over, like different slight variations on the theme of "change." I don't ever do well when it comes to selling candidates with "new and improved"-type labels. Reminds me of all the products that really weren't.

    Hillary? I already knew she had the same problem to a certain extent, only less "catch phrase"-y.

    I have been pleasantly surprised in many ways. For example: pleasantly surprised that there has been a change in how we speak to other nations, and talk about things... especially the BS bluster.

    Thanks, Barack.

    I also have recently seen another possible pleasant surprise recently: a possible change in whether we will legally pursue those who approved torture.... and those who did all they could to legally excuse torture. But as to whether he's sincere? I agree with Bill Press: "murky."

    Not that I think Hillary would have been doing any better at this point. Frankly, I never thought at the core they would be all that different. My marginal choice was based on winning.

    I'm glad so glad I was wrong about that. But I also think without Hillary and Barack trading the rhetorical ball back and forth the outcome could have been quite different. Two moving targets; sometimes pitted against each other in media-convenient ways, are always harder than one.

    Intentional tactic?

    Part of the plan?

    Those those who were angered by Barack offering a post to Hillary would understandable speculate so, but maybe not. Yet if it was a bit of a fake like in football: damn good plan. With most of the talking head shills, and a whole network, serving as propaganda slaves for the other side, more than a few fake passes would always get a big thumbs up from me.

    The shills and the Goebbels for the Right network can go suck on their pens and computer mice as far as I'm concerned. May they be arsenic-laced.

    But as to the torture issue, I'm not happy regarding how it has been handled, to type the least vile descriptive I can. Though it was about all I would have expected of a weak knee; Democratic administration, run by either Hillary or Barack. You know: the kind more interested in "getting along" and "going forward" than actual justice or precedents set?

    May the Cambodian skulls and concentration camp half dead be damned: just crunch your way towards a... better? ...future. That's "the past:" just shove those tormented souls off to the side.

    As of this typing Barack is now varying somewhere between, "Yes we will," "Maybe we will" and, "No, we won't." I suppose that's marginally better than, "No, we won't."

    Some very bad precedents will been set here unless we prosecute; at least one precedent (#2) that Hillary and her husband unintentionally helped to create. Precedents that might include, but are not limited to...

1. Under a Republican administration Republicans can do anything no matter how vile, how much of a lie. Personal responsibility is for everyone else. The President has more information than you, so shut the hell up.

2. Under a Democratic administration any accusation aimed against a Democrat; especially a president, is fair game and proof of guilt in itself. Everything is a plot: even when your friend with depression issues commits suicide. If your cat named Socks gets fan mail it's obviously some socialistic plot.

3. "Unequal protection" applies to George Bush and Dick Cheney and highly placed Republicans, but never Democrats or Lynddie England. Grunts have to take the fall for what the leadership will still claim was the right thing to do many years later.

    Anyone claiming any of the above is fair, well Karl-bot, go ^%$#@! yourself with live wires attached to your genitals. After all, it's not really "torture..." right?

   Right???

    And as far as I'm concerned not only should the Bybees and the Gonzos out there be on trial and some headed to the gallows both metaphorical and, perhaps, real, but Democratic enablers like Harry Reid too. One of my talk show habits is Mike Malloy. Mike says, "Barack did the appropriate thing handing it over. It's up to Eric Holder now." With all respect, Mike, I'm sure Eric knows what his boss wants done here; so if they don't prosecute, in my opinion, it bounces right back to Barack.

   Now here is my stand: plain and simple...

1. It doesn't matter one bit whether torture "works" or not. Prince Vlad certainly saw less crime and perhaps even "terrorism" when he shoved big sharp poles up through his victims. "Works" is not the point, nor should it be. If we are to claim that it is right to use "whatever works," then we might as well admit we are terrorists too.

2. Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning." If you were to continue the process your victim would die. It is drowning people, and reviving them to drown them again... and therefore qualifies as "torture."

3. If "enhanced interrogation" works so damn well, well then... where is bin Laden eight years later? Where is those massive amounts of invisible WMDs six years later? Not under here? Not under here? HA, HA, Ha, ha, haaaa... funny: not.

4. 9/11 provides no more an "excuse" for those wrongfully imprisoned than if any country; or movement, with an overwhelming number of these wrongfully imprisoned people decided that outrage would excuse torturing U.S. soldiers. Please remember: bin Laden and company had their excuses too. Doesn't make it right, or anything but but horrific, sadistic, and a large number of rather nasty descriptive terms I'd rather not type.

    So, if we "must" give a pass to Bush, Cheney and their cronies... whom do I blame now? Not just Bush and Cheney. I blame both Hillary and Barack.

    Otherwise I have been somewhat pleased...

    When Barack offered Hillary an appointment the Hillary hating portion of the Left howled. They spewed the old Right talking point that she would battleax her way into dominating policy. Not feeling they were all that different, I waited. These days I wonder what these Lefties think now? Nary a peep from the "I hate Hillary crowd."

    How has Hillary done over all?

    Other than my obvious problem with both... not bad.

    Not bad at all.

    And I feel the same about Barack.

    So much for the dominating "bitch" label both the radical Left and obscenely radical Right have slapped her with as if she were some unsubmissive wife who dares to ask, "Please don't beat me again."

    But when it comes to not prosecuting those guilty of torture I get off both boats: though Hillary has been mostly: and quite appropriately, quiet on this issue... given her position as serving at the pleasure of the president.

   (Let's not go there... OK?)

    Hillary, I'm sure, knows better than most what's in store for President Obama... no matter how nice, forgiving or "let's move on" he tries to be. That goes back to the Iran Contra crimes of Father Bush that Bill decided needed to be passed on. People made the mistake thinking that only if Hillary had ascended to the White House we would have had a Hell-storm created by the Right. Of course they're right about "Hell-storm..." except the qualifier "only." As the teabaggers and gun lobby have proven, we probably would have had that either way.

    And to quote the Carpenters, "It's only just begun..." My, how "romantic."

    This was never a Hillary, or even specifically a Bill, problem... though he didn't help by any means. It's always been a loud, obnoxious, hateful, group of extremists problem who have been mentally only a half a step behind Timothy McVeigh: at best.

    As of now, we are better off under an Obama administration; with Hillary on board, than we were before. But unless we bring those to justice who have been doing these criminal acts... and been forgiven for them since before Nixon; since at least the days of House Committee on Un-American Activities, we will continue on this more than half a century slide to Right Wing dictatorship. As I have argued many times: they won't stop unless it's made obvious there are consequences for their outrageous misbehavior.

    For those allowed to rule the day through such means will rule: no matter who holds the "pretend" reins of power. Obama taking back those reins and demanding justice is, simply put, acting presidential... and one hopes he has at least one appointee's voice whispering in his ear, "Do it."

    Do I think either likely?

    No.

                                                  -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

   Click on the link if you want to read next week's; Inspection- On Barack, Hillary and Torture, in advance. 

    I wrote: Inspection- The Problem with 24, well over two years ago. My basic assessment has not changed...

    Those who use 24 to justify what is jokingly refer to as "enhanced interrogation" are more than a bit off-base: to be polite. Especially when they use that ticking time bomb scenario to justify using torture which has nothing to do with what they are actually defending: the right to torture... period: not some twice past the twelve scenario. Yet they can't resist...

"But what if we had 24 hours to find a thumbtack nuke stuck under a squirrel's paw..."

    Well, more than likely, no matter who we torture; we wouldn't find it. Not even considering less than sarcastic squirrel-based locations. Even if we beat some actual "Col." Achmed Mustard the Terrorist "bloody" with his own candlestick wrapped up in a prayer rug. Saying whatever translates into "stop" does not auto equal getting anywhere near to the truth; anything we need to know.

    The 24 scenario is also used to excuse dumping of basic principles we have accepted as a free society since our own forefathers fought for them. Doesn't matter whether those we torment are, or aren't, Americans... I'm specifically thinking of Jose Padilla here, amongst others. Washington himself made a point of treating those who battled against us well; even if they were British.

    And as my previous column pointed out, those who use 24-type scenarios seem to conveniently forget that Jack Bauer pays every time: and pays personally, for violating rights. While some join in the action, he is mostly a lone wolf. Why would they skip over this rather obvious part of the scripting in 24 ? Because they're not really defending any Jack-like characters out there who did what they thought they had to as the final minutes ticked by. Instead what they are often demanding: not even asking for, is the right to do this en mass: as officially approved policy: even if it gains little to no usable intel.

    No.

    I cannot put it any clearer.

    No, damn it.

    We are better than this. We have to be better than this. Otherwise we're simply joining the ranks of those who commit terror: doing whatever is convenient to our agenda at the time.

    I do watch 24. It is entertaining, though they're too caught up each year in trying to outdo the last year. That's a common trend in shows that rely on a lot of angst; pushed forward plot-wise by a hell of a lot of twists; driven by an increasing number of deus ex machina big booms. To say it's gotten more than a bit absurd would be a vast understatement... and the point of this edition of Inspection.

    I have spent a lot of time arguing on debate sites with those who defend torment, torture and the necessity of any big change in the freedoms we have here in America that might possibly "protect" us. I have noticed a good portion of these folks use 24-driven arguments are also huge fans of the show. They also have a lot of not so pent up hatred for what they refer to as "Truthers" and "Deniers:" those who question what happened on 9/11.

    I'm not quite in either camp. I do think there are questions regarding 9/11; but the important ones are regarding ignored warnings: intentional or not, and a certain large chunk of change that disappeared into the Taliban's hands shortly before 9/11 with no accounting for it. Did it wind up funding 9/11? I'm guessing we'll never know either way.

    Conspiracy theory doubters have some real good points. If any theory requires a lot of people being quiet and contingency planning, it's probably too complex to be completely true. Probably. I totally dismiss little; except complete theories so convoluted an idiot could see they are, at best, poor scripting.

    Which brings me back to 24. If you've avoided it, let me get you up to speed without a lot of filler. After a few weeks episodes, every year, it always looks like Jack has finally uncovered the conspiracy and all's well.... problem solved! But... (Wow! Wow! Who saw that coming?) ...they had a contingency plan, or someone we didn't suspect was also part of it. And off the conspiracy goes at a right angle, or even a 180 degree spin. Every few weeks that cycle repeats to the point where you have a vast number of people who had to keep it all quiet. And the, plotters have to make a multitude of plans in case plan A, B, C, J, Z or Pi Squared to the millionth power falls through.

    Wait. Wait, isn't this the same damn thing they complain about when they face off those whom they deride as "Truthers," "Deniers," conspiracy nuts and wackos? So they use a program in their core arguments that offers an increasingly twisted, and an increasingly convoluted plot line year after year. All of this would make even some of the most "out there" conspiracy folks scream, "Give me a friggin break."

    Give me a frackin break.

    What does this say about those who are quick to sneer at those who questioned what happened, yet they willingly suspend belief when it suits their purposes? 24 simply is a bad example to base such a major change in how we treat each other on.

    And if you have a problem with complex conspiracy theories, don't use a TV show that specializes in them to support your own arguments. Otherwise you're just another crackpot wearing a big tinfoil hat.

                                                                  -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.